21 Jul 07
Originally posted by jimslyp69well doesn't that say something?
Probably 95% of people, because MS monopolised the market in the 90's.
Mac was around at the same time and MS dominated back then. Apple is just starting catchup. Doesn't that say something about Microsoft's consistency if nothing else?
21 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ih8sensI was refering to the fact that MS unfairly cornered the market. If you bought a computer, it had Windows installed on it. No questions asked. The monopolies and mergers had to step in. Albeit too late.
well doesn't that say something?
Mac was around at the same time and MS dominated back then. Apple is just starting catchup. Doesn't that say something about Microsoft's consistency if nothing else?
Don't get me wrong, I like and use Windows. I'm a lazy bastard. It does everything I want it to. It's 'nice'. But they went about things the wrong way in the 90's and left people with little choice of OS's. Mac was battered into virtual submission, but yet it is still going? Why do you think that is? Probably because it is 100 times more stable than any MS product.
Why do you think people still use Novell for coorporate networking and many people are moving towards Linux?
Also, what's this about MS Windows patches? Isn't that like selling people a punctured tyre then selling them a repair kit when they have got 5 miles down the road with a dented hub?
21 Jul 07
Originally posted by jimslyp69lol Linux is good... it'll both improve the stability of computers but will end the feud between mac and windows which at this point really can't be settled as both have their strong points.
I was refering to the fact that MS unfairly cornered the market. If you bought a computer, it had Windows installed on it. No questions asked. The monopolies and mergers had to step in. Albeit too late.
Don't get me wrong, I like and use Windows. I'm a lazy bastard. It does everything I want it to. It's 'nice'. But they went about things the wrong way in ...[text shortened]... n selling them a repair kit when they have got 5 miles down the road with a dented hub?
21 Jul 07
Originally posted by jimslyp69Because they didn't gain the market through a quality product, they made it through making their items status symbols.
So why slate Mac so much then, if you say it has its strong points?
And I'm obliged to hate mac because all my friends just bought iPods and I don't have one 😀.
21 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ih8sensWow! How wrong you are. Mac was never marketed as a status symbol. FOr as long as I remember it has been deemed as an untrendy workhorse that
Because they didn't gain the market through a quality product, they made it through making their items status symbols.
And I'm obliged to hate mac because all my friends just bought iPods and I don't have one 😀.
was fading out, but did the job. A victim of the dog eat dog world of consumerism. Perhaps now they are establishing themselves within the market again, they are using adverts to gain attention, but I doubt that over the last 10 years, they have spent even 1% of Intel's and Windows budget on advertising.
You can hardly blame Apple for for the way the world has gone with it's 'must have' consumerism attitude. It is but a small cog in a massive machine.
22 Jul 07
Originally posted by Wheelyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_champagne_producers
Moët & Chandon is a really average to nasty champagne. I will admit that it has been very well marketed but you shouldn't tar all champagne with the same brush. Honestly, try a good one and you'll see the difference.
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by ih8sensIf you can't remember, research!
When I talk about the intel processor I'm talking about apple stealing that idea from microsoft. It's true that mac is great and all but if anything, it's worse than microsoft (equal at best) and way more expensive. Drop your price 50% and increase compatibility and use (85% of computer users still don't own an apple product (excluding the ipod) and about ...[text shortened]... ttin a mac computer though until they beat microsoft in every category including price 😛.
Nobody stole the idea of using intel processors from anybody. Processors are hardware and are designed to do stuff. Lots of companies build a range of computer from the humble PC to high end back end machines using intel processors. Intel don't give a damn what runs on them and thus you get DOS, Unix, Windows, FreeBSD, Linux, Beos and many other operating systems that choose Intel because they are cheap and easy to get hold of. Apple can be said to have been late to join the Intel party.
Another point, when you say a mac needs to be more compatible what do you actually mean? Are you expecting all operating systems to be binary compatible with Windows? Computers being able to get along with each other used to be a selling point. I used to compile MS-DOS applications on a Xenix box. It was Microsoft themselves that continually broke standards to make it more and more difficult to work with their operating system. They are directly responsible for the tangle of incompatible rubbish that IT departments have to build on top of each other just to do stuff that used to be so simple.
I'm glad you like Windows but it's unfair to disparage the mac for reasons that are actually Microsoft's failings.
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by zeeblebotActually with champagne, the year is incredibly important. I never believed this myself until I ordered a 1995 Bollinger in a restaurant. What I got just didn't taste like what I was used to. I moaned a lot to the staff who assured me it really was a 1995 Bollinger. Lots of polite arguments eventually bought the manger who apologised and told me it was actually a 1998.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_champagne_producers
It's odd really. the 1996 Bollinger was also a "Grand Annee" but wasn't anywhere near as nice as the 1995.
I don't remember ever having a remotely nice Moët though,
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by WheelyDon't compare apples and pears. The standard champaign, of which the Moët & Chandon is a great example, is blended in such a way that the vintage is NOT important, but rather the 'house taste' is reproduced.
Actually with champagne, the year is incredibly important. I never believed this myself until I ordered a 1995 Bollinger in a restaurant. What I got just didn't taste like what I was used to. I moaned a lot to the staff who assured me it really was a 1995 Bollinger. Lots of polite arguments eventually bought the manger who apologised and told me it was ac ...[text shortened]... re near as nice as the 1995.
I don't remember ever having a remotely nice Moët though,
A millesimé champaign is different in that respect, and if you never had a 'remotely nice' M&C then you have never tried one or have no clue. It may not be THE best, but a Dom Perignon is at least the level of the Bollinger millesime (perhaps not the special cuvées). And the vintage years are pretty comparable, since they grow their grapes all accross the champaign region in a patwchwork of 'neighbouring' fields, classified by quality level.
23 Jul 07
Originally posted by Mephisto2I just don't like the Moët "house taste" then though find me a good one and I'll try it. For me, I'd agree with how this utterly off topic conversation started except for the vintage champagnes. I have only really liked the classics.
Don't compare apples and pears. The standard champaign, of which the Moët & Chandon is a great example, is blended in such a way that the vintage is NOT important, but rather the 'house taste' is reproduced.
I'm not expert but have tried many champagnes and watched many of them being made. Most people don't actually like champagne but recognize that it's what you are supposed to have at a celebration. This is because they have not tasted a classic.
24 Jul 07
Originally posted by Wheelydid apple not have to drastically alter their OS to get it to run on intel chips though? i forget at all, all i know is that the chips they used to use worked differently and so the change over, i presume, was rather complicated...
If you can't remember, research!
Nobody stole the idea of using intel processors from anybody. Processors are hardware and are designed to do stuff. Lots of companies build a range of computer from the humble PC to high end back end machines using intel processors. Intel don't give a damn what runs on them and thus you get DOS, Unix, Windows, FreeBSD, Li ...[text shortened]... ws but it's unfair to disparage the mac for reasons that are actually Microsoft's failings.
just thought i'd say. 😛
24 Jul 07
Originally posted by geniusIn 1999 Apple used a Unix-like base ( a lot of FreeBSD components, for example) to create their new OS X operating system, and though PowerPC chips were the only chips offered in the Macs, from the very beginning OS X was written to use both Apple/IBM/Motorola PowerPC and Intel architectures. When it became clear that the PowerPC chips could not break the 3 GHz barrier without exceeding Apple's limits on thermal output, Apple announced the switch to Intel in 2005, and the first generation of Intel Macs appeared in 2006.
did apple not have to drastically alter their OS to get it to run on intel chips though? i forget at all, all i know is that the chips they used to use worked differently and so the change over, i presume, was rather complicated...
just thought i'd say. 😛
--
24 Jul 07
Originally posted by geniusThey dramatically altered their operating system because a) the old one was getting a bit long in the tooth and b) Steve Jobs has always been a Unix guy (sensible chap that he is). Do you think people shouldn't update operating systems? Windows breaks binary compatibility all the time with each update. By the way, Microsoft also had a version of Windows that ran on a Dec Alpha RISC processor instead of Intel. You can bet that was a drastic change.
did apple not have to drastically alter their OS to get it to run on intel chips though? i forget at all, all i know is that the chips they used to use worked differently and so the change over, i presume, was rather complicated...
just thought i'd say. 😛
Actually, porting your OS to a different CPU isn't THAT big a deal. Look at linux for example. It runs on Intel, RISC, MIPS, ARM and practically any old CPU you care to mention. It even runs in my router.
